ROBINSON.— DIAGNOSES ETC. OF SPERMATOPHYTES. 515 
Trichocline reptans (Wedd.), comb. nov. Bichenia reptans 
Wedd. Chlor. And. 25, t. 8B (1855). 
Gerbera gossypina (Royle), comb. nov. Chaptalia gossypina 
Royle, Ill. 18, 247, 251 (mere mentions, without characterization) & 
t. 57, f. 2, with floral details (“analyses’’) rendering the plate valid 
publication according to Article 37 of the International Rules. Ono- 
seris lanuginosa Wall. Cat. no. 2929 (1828), nomen nudum. Oreoseris 
lanuginosa (Wall.) DC. Prod. vii. 17 (“1838”), citing Royle both by 
page and plate number; Deless. Ic. iv. 34 (citing both Royle and DC.), 
t. 76 (“1839”). It is impossible to see how the name lanuginosa can 
stand under the International Rules. Wallich’s original publication 
of the name in 1828 is accompanied by no description. The publica- 
tions of DeCandolle and Delessert must have been prepared at the 
same time and in collaboration, since they each cite the other by 
reference to page or plate, but it is significant that they both cite 
Royle’s publication, a seemingly conclusive evidence that it must 
have been already in print. A manuscript note in the copy of the 
fourth volume of Delessert’s Icones in the library of the Gray Her- 
barium states that it was received in December, 1840. 
Gerbera maxima (D.Don),comb. nov. Chaptalia maxima D. Don, 
Prod. Fl. Nepal. 166 (1825). Perdiciwm semiflosculare? Ham. ex D. 
Don, I. e., not L. Tussilago macrophylla Wall. Cat. no. 2989 (1828). 
Berniera nepalensis DC. Prod. vii. 18 (“1838”). Gerbera macrophylla 
(Wall.) Benth. in Benth. & Hook. f. Gen. Pl. ii. 497 (1873), according 
to Hook. f. Fl. Brit. Ind. iii. 391 (1882). Gerbera nepalensis (DC.) 
Sch. Bip. Flora, xxvii. 780 (1844). 
Leucnerta INTEGRIFOLIA (Phil.) Reiche, Fl. Chil. iv. 420 (1905), as 
eucerva. This binomial was published by its author in a foot-note 
with the statement that he did not regard it as valid. Why authors 
should wish to publish names which they do not believe to be valid is 
a psychological mystery, which need not be discussed here. The 
aa of interest in the present case lies in the fact that the discredited 
a would appear after all to be the legitimate designation of 
oo in question. Reiche founded his new combination upon 
raea wntegrifolia Phil. Anal. Univ. Santiago, xli. 744 (1872), but 
¢ states that Leuceria integrifolia (Phil.) [Reiche] cannot be accepted 
Saag of the existence of an earlier Leuceria integrifolia Phil. How- 
rite - is earlier homonym does not appear to have been published 
Phil, sia probable that Reiche had in mind Chabraea integrifolia 
( 430 haea, xxviii. 716 (1856), which on a later page of his work 
) Reiche includes in the synonymy of Leuceria lithospermifolia 
